使用 FEV1 与 TLC 测量限制性肺病的严重程度

Rebeca Vazquez-Nieves
{"title":"使用 FEV1 与 TLC 测量限制性肺病的严重程度","authors":"Rebeca Vazquez-Nieves","doi":"10.12788/fp.0481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: No clear parameters currently exist to grade severity in restrictive lung disease as for other ventilatory diseases. This article evaluates whether total lung capacity (TLC) or forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) better correlates with the symptomatology of patients with restrictive lung disease. Methods: A retrospective review of 6461 patient records at Veterans Affairs Caribbean Healthcare System in Puerto Rico was conducted, and 414 patients met the inclusion criteria. Pulmonary function test, Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, FEV 1 , and TLC data were collected for each patient. Results: We identified a stronger correlation between FEV 1 ( r = 0.25, P < .001) vs TLC ( r = 0.15, P < .001) when related to the degree of dyspnea as measured with the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale. Conclusions: Results of this study suggest that compared with TLC, FEV 1 may provide a more accurate measure of restrictive lung disease severity. Further research should look for more accurate measures of patient dyspnea in restrictive lung disease.","PeriodicalId":513268,"journal":{"name":"Federal Practitioner","volume":"62 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Restrictive Lung Disease Severity Using FEV1 vs TLC\",\"authors\":\"Rebeca Vazquez-Nieves\",\"doi\":\"10.12788/fp.0481\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: No clear parameters currently exist to grade severity in restrictive lung disease as for other ventilatory diseases. This article evaluates whether total lung capacity (TLC) or forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) better correlates with the symptomatology of patients with restrictive lung disease. Methods: A retrospective review of 6461 patient records at Veterans Affairs Caribbean Healthcare System in Puerto Rico was conducted, and 414 patients met the inclusion criteria. Pulmonary function test, Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, FEV 1 , and TLC data were collected for each patient. Results: We identified a stronger correlation between FEV 1 ( r = 0.25, P < .001) vs TLC ( r = 0.15, P < .001) when related to the degree of dyspnea as measured with the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale. Conclusions: Results of this study suggest that compared with TLC, FEV 1 may provide a more accurate measure of restrictive lung disease severity. Further research should look for more accurate measures of patient dyspnea in restrictive lung disease.\",\"PeriodicalId\":513268,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Federal Practitioner\",\"volume\":\"62 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Federal Practitioner\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12788/fp.0481\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Practitioner","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12788/fp.0481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与其他通气疾病一样,目前尚无明确的参数可对限制性肺疾病的严重程度进行分级。本文评估了总肺活量(TLC)或一秒钟用力呼气容积(FEV 1)是否与限制性肺疾病患者的症状有更好的相关性。研究方法对波多黎各退伍军人事务加勒比医疗保健系统的 6461 份病历进行了回顾性审查,414 名患者符合纳入标准。收集了每位患者的肺功能测试、改良医学研究委员会呼吸困难量表、FEV 1 和 TLC 数据。结果:我们发现,FEV 1 ( r = 0.25, P < .001) 与 TLC ( r = 0.15, P < .001) 与改良医学研究委员会呼吸困难量表(Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale)测量的呼吸困难程度之间存在更强的相关性。结论:本研究结果表明,与 TLC 相比,FEV 1 可以更准确地测量限制性肺病的严重程度。进一步的研究应寻找限制性肺病患者呼吸困难的更准确测量方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measuring Restrictive Lung Disease Severity Using FEV1 vs TLC
Background: No clear parameters currently exist to grade severity in restrictive lung disease as for other ventilatory diseases. This article evaluates whether total lung capacity (TLC) or forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) better correlates with the symptomatology of patients with restrictive lung disease. Methods: A retrospective review of 6461 patient records at Veterans Affairs Caribbean Healthcare System in Puerto Rico was conducted, and 414 patients met the inclusion criteria. Pulmonary function test, Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, FEV 1 , and TLC data were collected for each patient. Results: We identified a stronger correlation between FEV 1 ( r = 0.25, P < .001) vs TLC ( r = 0.15, P < .001) when related to the degree of dyspnea as measured with the Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale. Conclusions: Results of this study suggest that compared with TLC, FEV 1 may provide a more accurate measure of restrictive lung disease severity. Further research should look for more accurate measures of patient dyspnea in restrictive lung disease.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Measuring Restrictive Lung Disease Severity Using FEV1 vs TLC Act Fast With Traction Alopecia to Avoid Permanent Hair Loss Suspected Orbital Compartment Syndrome Leading to Visual Loss After Pterional Craniotomy Long-Term Assessment of Weight Loss Medications in a Veteran Population The Role of High Reliability Organization Foundational Practices in Building a Culture of Safety
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1